Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 30 September 2005

The merger dispute

There are several related disputes that have raged on the pages Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, Talk:Zionism and Talk:Occupied territories. The issue that should be resolved first, in my opinion, because it is completely blocking progress, is whether this article should be merged into Occupation of the Palestinian territories or vice versa. No one has expressed support for keeping both articles. Once we have one article, we will have a single place to address the related issues, particulary what is the proper usage of the terms "occupied territory" and "disputed territory" within Misplaced Pages articles.

So far, Jayjg, Viriditas, Humus sapiens, and SlimVirgin seem to feel strongly that Occupied Territories (Israeli) should be merged into Occupation of the Palestinian territories. Me, Marsden and (I think) Grace Note believe that Occupation of the Palestinian territories should be merged into Occupied Territories (Israeli). The reasons I believe this is the way the merger should be done are:

1. The subjects are different: OofPt is specifically about the West Bank and Gaza whereas OT(I) is about not only those areas but all the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war. It makes sense to merge the specific article into the more general article.
2. Merging OT(I) into OotPt would require substantially rewriting or removing a lot of the material in the OotPt article, material which makes sense only in the context of the narrow scope of that article. However, merging OotPt into OT(I) would not require rewriting much in OT(I), just adding whatever is relevant and non-redundant from the former.
3. Much of the history and talk in Occupation of the Palestinian territories was produced by editors who believed the article was about occupation of the Palestinian territories. Expanding the scope of that article to include the Sinai and Golan Heights would make much of that history senseless. I am particularly thinking here about the topic Jmabel's thoughts on what the article should be, at the beginning of Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, which neither Jayjg, Viriditas, Humus sapies, nor SlimVirgin have ever responded to, despite that the fact that their thoughts on what that article should be are completely opposed to Jmabel's.
4. Quite frankly, the OT(I) article is better written and, if anything, closer to the NPOV standard than OotPt (which is not to stay it could not stand improvement in that regard).

I suggest we defer discussion on other issues, particularly what the title of the surviving article should be, until the merger issue is resolved. Once we have one article, we can then discuss how that article should be titled. Also, while the merger discussion is going on I urge that there be no unilateral actions, like major rewrites, blanking, or renaming of either of the articles in question. I hope we can resolve the matter among ourselves, but I am prepared to take this through the Misplaced Pages mediation process if necessary.

Brian Tvedt 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, if we're all agreed that the contents of the two articles should be merged, then I think the real issues are what the scope of the article should be, and what the title should be. I agree with you that the scope should include all territories captured by Israel in the Six-day war; does everyone else agree? Jayjg 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that that is the best way to approach it. But whatever we include, your article should be merged into this one. The other one is hopelessly biased. Any article on this subject should take as its base the understood, majority view on the territories. It should include the Israeli viewpoint but it should not give it undue weight. Wherever it is put forward, it should be clearly stated that it is the view of the Israeli government and its supporters, and not a fact nor a widely held view. That's what NPOV demands. Grace Note 01:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Your article"? I haven't written any articles on the subject. Jayjg 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the article is called, the official positions of both Israel and the PNA concerning the controversy over how the territories are referenced needs to be accurately presented. --MPerel 06:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My original concern when I wrote this article was that the term "Occupied Territories," used to refer to the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, had been entirely orphaned on Wiki. This in spite of the fact that it is broadly used here, as in Talk:Israel, where the term is used in a link with no less than eight sub-links. And Jay, Slim, and I spent quite awhile yesterday repairing links that clearly refered to the OT(I) but which had been left pointing to the generalized-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness occupied territories article.

The occupied territories article was originally about the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, but its meaning got diverted into being about the meaning of the term "occupied territory" generally, something for which there is, in my opinion, almost no need whatever.

In that respect, I still strongly feel that somehow the term "Occupied Territories," used to refer to the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, must not be orphaned, in spite of Jay and Slim's efforts to the contrary. It has been used essentially ubiquitously, and the only people who have ever objected to it are those who want to promote ultimate Israeli possession of part or all of them: this is hardly NPOV. Even if it is disputed that "occupied" is legally accurate, there can be no reasonable question that the term has been very broadly used, historically, and to pretend that this is not the case is to re-write history. I have already made this argument at Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories.

This (Occupied Territories (Israeli)) article is, by design, very matter-of-fact in its writing. I don't think any of what is in it is in any real sort of factual dispute; there are objections to termology, which are addressed, and there will probably be objections to disclosure and prominence of certain information, but I don't think it is appropriate of Misplaced Pages to censor.

The Occupation of the Palestinian territories article, on the other hand, is a ranging and disorganized editorial. It seems mostly to be reporting on statements of different opinions, with relatively little about the underlying facts. There should be, in my opinion, somewhere on Misplaced Pages statements of the differing opinions on what the correct moral and legal positions regarding the concerned territories are, and what the ultimate disposition of them should be, but there should first be a straight-forward statement of what the facts of the situation are. Occupied Territories (Israeli) aims at this; Occupation of the Palestinian territories does not.

Marsden 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to continue to debate with you and assume good faith while you have nonsense on your user page about how many Wikipedians are "evil". SlimVirgin 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Espousing ethnic cleansing is evil. Debate that. Marsden 19:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Which Wikipedians are espousing ethnic cleansing? SlimVirgin 19:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Directly, User:Guy Montag is. He writes,

• "Transfer is the only solution. I am of course talking of transfer of Arabs, either through incentive or law out of the territories and Israel,"

adding,

• "Now don't take it the wrong way." (!)

And indirectly, you are, Slim. So glad I could clear that up for you. Marsden 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought for one horrible minute I was being accused of POV editing, violating policy, or making spelling mistakes. I'm so relieved it's only ethnic cleansing. SlimVirgin 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indirecty she is? Do go on. Somehow, it isn't cleared up for me. El_C 10:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Geez louise, Marsden, good eye...NOT. If Slim's an ethnic cleansing proponent, then what is this guy? --MPerel 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's "oops" and "no good faith" edits

Jayjg, your edits seem a clear violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. You should not be making edits to this page solely for the purpose of retaliation against another user for changes that user made on a different page, whether that user violated an "agreement" or not. I have provided specifc reasons why the more specific article should be merged into this one. You have not provided any reason for doing it the other way. In fact it doesn't make sense, since you say you want an article on the more general topic. Brian Tvedt 02:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian, how do you feel about Marsden's subsequent reversion of your article merger, and move of your article back to its old name - "good faith"? Jayjg 15:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Although there was consesus to merge the articles, the title change was done without discussion. I agreed to it, but Marsden did not, and he certainly has the right to speak for himself on the point. He should not have reverted the text of the article just because he disagreed with the title, though.

That being said, Marsden is a relatively new user. You, on the other hand, are a sysop and a member of the arbitration committee, and therefore your misbehavior is of far more serious concern.

I have to say, if you were in favor of the merger, your repeated blanking of the agreed on target page was not very helpful. Brian Tvedt 11:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged from Occupation of the Palestinian territories

This is a true merge, integrating the text of the other article into this one, not a simple blanking and redirect. There are still rough spots and I may not have removed all duplication.

There seems to be consensus on the direction of the merge, as nobody raised any specific objection to merging in the direction I proposed and argued for. Also, we all apparently agree that the scope of the article should be territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

As to the title, I favor Territories under Israeli control which seems neutral, and doesn't suffer from the objections of "occupied territory" or "disputed territory". Brian Tvedt 02:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll point the other article here as well. Jayjg 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Territories under Israeli control" is just silly, and very POV. Isn't Tel Aviv a territory under Israeli control? "Occupied" will, of course, face objections from the rightwing extremists here, but it is the only accurate term that describes the situation in a NPOV fashion. It is the term used by all non-Israeli governments in the world, all major academic institutions, all major news agencies, etc. This isn't Fox News, we shouldn't create our own 'fair and balanced' presentation, we should present the factual situation (and note objections from significant minorities). --saxet 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. The entire world, bar a very small majority, calls these the "occupied territories". Naming this article according to the minority view would be similar to having an article called the supposed deity named God or the false theory of evolution. Grace Note 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, we can certainly agree on some sort of name, but Marsden's continually creating POV forks is getting out of hand. Let's have one article, and we'll work out the name and contents of that one. Brian has merged everything there, this is the best starting place. Jayjg 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why "occupied territories" should be used in Misplaced Pages is because: United Nations uses it, Amnesty International uses it, U.S. Department of State uses it, the CIA uses it, the Human Rights Watch uses it, Reuters uses it, and so forth. --saxet 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur - they are called the Occupied Territories. The current title is a ridiculous euphemism. john k 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've started a copy edit but now can't insert it because Marsden keeps reverting, so I'm pasting it in here until he stops. It's absurd that you're now holding up improving the article, Marsden, and keep reverting to a version with poor writing for the sake of making whatever your point is (I've lost track of whether you even have one). I'm pasting here what I'd done before his latest revert. SlimVirgin 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of Israel object to using the term "Occupied Territories" to describe these areas, preferring to call them "disputed territories" or, with reference to the West Bank, Judea and Samaria. They argue that to refer to the territories as occupied precludes Israel from claiming parts of them as its sovereign territory, and that being an occupying power would invoke the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians during war and occupation. Israel holds that the Convention does not apply to the territories.

For Palestinians, the Syrian residents of the Golan Heights, and their supporters, the term "occupied territory" reflects their view that Israel is a foreign presence in control of areas over which they have no sovereignty. To support this view, they cite:

• Israeli military administration over Palestinians and the residents of the Golan Heights
• The view of the world's governments that this is an occupation
• The legal interpretations of the International Court of Justice, other UN bodies, and the Supreme Court of Israel that it is an occupation

Supporters of Israel believe the term "occupied" expresses prejudice about the situation which, they argue, has no basis in international law or history. They consider the area "disputed," based on the following:

• No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders.
• The United Nations uses the term "disputed" about all other contested areas in the world — even those for which a stronger case for "occupation" can be made.
• Historically, Jews have at least as strong a claim to the area as Palestinians do, and possibly stronger.

• The Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history.

Consistent with democracy

Do Israeli supporters say that this situation is consistent with democracy? If so, okay, but if no source is made handy, it should probably be rephrased. El_C 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they say that Israel is a democracy and seem to be saying that the West Bank is part of Israel. Brian Tvedt 01:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding POV terms

In line with the elimination of any reference to "occupation" in the title, I'm going to change all direct uses of the term "Israel" to "the Zionist Entity," or some variation of that. As most of you probably know, many countries do not recognize the State of Israel, and many people throughout the Muslim world do not acknowledge its existence, so it would be POV to use that term: "Israel" is pro-Israeli POV; "Zionist Entity" is NPOV; and things like "den of vipers" or "blight upon the earth" are Palestinian/Arab POV.

While some of you may think that this is outrageous, it really isn't, or at least it is less outrageous than the fait accompli of eliminating direct references to "Israeli occupation" because that term is POV. It is official Misplaced Pages policy that cultural bias is NPOV, and worldwide, there is much more dispute as to whether the State of Israel is legitimate than there is as to whether Israel occupies the Occupied Territories.

Obviously, I'm going to have an awful lot of editting to do all throughout Misplaced Pages in order to eliminate the POV term "Israel," so I'll welcome help from wherever I can get it. I'll allow a day or so for people to comment. Marsden 13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm been working to clean up the Israel/Palestinian articles from what I consider to be a pro-Israeli bias. I'm a secular jew and feel that quite a few of the other editors are hardcore right-wing Israeli Nationalists (who let their personal POV saturate the articles). But this suggestion from you is beyond pale, and I will help make sure that you don't have any success with your enterprise. Of course it is outrageous that the hardline group has almost managed to erase all references to the fact that territories are/have been occupied. It doesn't excuse any effort to eliminate the name "Israel", which all countries recognize as the name of Israel, even if some countries do not recognize the legality of Israel's claim to land. --saxet 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, mistaken about all countries recognizing the name "Israel," unless you mean it in the sense only of understanding what it means. You can research that if you like. It really is, from a world-wide perspective, more outrageous to eliminate references to "Israel's occupation" than to eliminate references to "Israel." You can research that, too. I would like very much not to have to replace "Israel" with "the Zionist Entity" throughout Misplaced Pages; frankly, I agree with you that, however much different people may object to it, "Israel" is still a broadly used and internationally and legally recognized term and everyone understands what it means. But if POV sensitivities are such that references to "Israel's occupation" have disappeared, it should be clear that neutrality demands that references to "Israel" itself should disappear. I'd prefer that they both stay/be replaced, but it's a battle that is being lost. Would you be willing to lend a hand in restoring references to "Israel's occupation?" Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:POINT is my comment at this time. El_C 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I infer from this that you are willing to help restore references to "Israel's occupation?" Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not from this you can't. But, yes, I am in favour of such references. El_C 20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Having announced a deliberate plan to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, knowing full well it is contrary to policy here, please consider yourself warned that to do such is vandalism; do it even and you'll be blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a serious issue if you believe that a country (and its Name) recognized by the UN are POV. I will do my best, within Misplaced Pages limits, to avoid those changes to stick. --Sebastian Kessel 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And what have you two worthies done about the effort to eliminate any direct reference in Misplaced Pages to Israel being an occupying power? Does your selective outrage have something to do with skin color? Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I have to interject here - we argued vehemently once before, and reached accomodation that allowed us to work together on a contentious article; I thought your ideas were valuable, and the improved opening paragraphs of the Zionism article reflected that. When the Occupied Territories fight started on that page, I tried several times to develop compromises, but have since dropped out of that debate because I didn't want to get involved in an edit storm that would drive me crazy, and because it seemed like the chance of achieving reasoned discussion and consensus between the two sides was unlikely. So, with this as context, I have to tell you that I find your proposal quite troubling, in that it is definitively a WP:POINT issue that goes far beyond your ongoing arguments over the issue of the occupied territories or whatever you are fighting over. If I understand you, you are threatening to remove the word Israel from the articles on Jewish history or Berihah or the Irgun or any one of the thousands of other pages not related to your dispute because you are having a fight on this page? I know you are frustrated, and that you are trying to make a point with this, but trying to make a point by attacking other articles is exactly the kind of destructive behavior that threatens the integrity of Misplaced Pages as a whole and draws in editors like myself who would otherwise have at least listened to a more reasonable debate on the topic. You are not going to convince anyone with this approach, and attempts to point out contradictions in people's positions through over-the-top proposals is not an effective argumentation technique, it undermines any points you might have, and makes it seem like you are not acting in good faith. Please reconsider your approach. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Polonius, do you agree or disagree that Misplaced Pages should have a consistent policy about what terms are not directly used because they are POV? All I'm asking for is consistency, and if "Israel" and "Occupied" are not to be used directly together, then the term "Israel" itself, which, world-wide, is far more objected to than "Israeli occupied," must also be. Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, my problem is that you are not asking for consistancy, you are threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. No matter how right or wrong you are, I think it is absolutely terrible precedent to allow the sort of threat you made to work as a rhetorical device. If this approach to resolving arguments is used repeatedly, Misplaced Pages will either fall apart or become so annoying to edit that no one will want to do so. I would have been willing to weigh in on the issue of Israeli occupation under other circumstances (for example, a request on my Talk page), but I will not do so under the threat that otherwise you will systematically vandalize thousands of articles. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate WP:POINT. Not that it isn't absurd that the term Occupied Territories has been banned. john k 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fact v argument

Brian, in the terminology section, these positions are not stated as fact, but as argument. In attributing that argument to the settlers and their supporters, you're qualifying it. The section already says that these are arguments used by Israel's supporters. SlimVirgin 01:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I now accept that you are attributing it to "Israel's supporters". That being said, I don't think it's a valid summary of what "supporters of Israel" believe. There are many people (such as Peace Now) who consider themselves supporters of Israel, but don't assert that Jews have a "claim" to the West Bank that trumps the 3+ million Palestinians who live there. Attributing this argument to the settler's movement, as I did, is more accurate. Brian Tvedt 10:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because we list the arguments that are among those used by Israel's supporters doesn't mean that all supporters use all the arguments. The point is that not only the settler movement uses those arguments. SlimVirgin 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording, so it is now about people who object to the term "occupied", which is more accurate anyway, since there are supporters of Israel who do object to the term. Jayjg 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Marsden, did you do a cut and paste move of this talk page? That's a big no no. john k 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Why is it a big no no? Marsden 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but we've lost the page history (of the article), and I can't find a way to restore it. I moved the page back when I saw Marsden had changed it, but I didn't realize he had made a cut-and-paste move, so maybe something I did caused the history to disappear. I'm seeing that there are 117 deleted edits, but when I go to restore them, it says there is no page history. SlimVirgin 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Jayjg's fixed it. SlimVirgin 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves destroy the history. They are always to be avoided. john k 14:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I've managed to restore the history as well. Jayjg 14:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aquifers

Marsden keeps inserting this paragraph into the article:

A central strategic concern of Israel in the West Bank is maintaining control of the Mountain Aquifer, which supplies over a third of Israel's fresh water resources. Israel has strictly limited Palestinian well-digging in the West Bank, resulting in water access for Palestinians there that is near the limits necessary to sustain human life, as reported by the United Nations. These limits help to preserve the Aquifer for Israeli use.

Can someone explain what this original research strategic analysis is doing in the middle of a discussion of the political history of the territories? Did the Sinai Peninsula section discuss the "strategic concern of Israel" regarding Oil supplies, for example (the Sinai Peninsula had Israel's only working oil wells, as far as I know)? And why the focus on water, and not, say, on military issues (e.g. strategic depth)? The entire rest of the article discusses the political and legal history of the territories in question, why is this out-of-place argument being inserted? Is this article to be a reprise of the Arab-Israeli conflict article, or West Bank article? Jayjg 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly original research, and its germane to the discussion of the territories. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Water lies at the core of the problems in Israel. This is why are interested in the occupied territories; not for the territory, but for the water within that territory." -- Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. No reason Sinai section should not mention oil; I doubt any of us do not know that Israel gave up its only oil production in making peace with Egypt. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is the narrow focus on water resources as being the key issue, which is a highly POV approach. There are many issues in the conflict. For some the issue is purely religious; this is land that they believe God promised them. For others the issue is about Jewish ownership of the land, and Zionist ideals. For others the issues are all military (strategic depth). For others, the issues are mostly political (don't give up something for nothing). Your focus on one narrow view of what it is about (water) creates a distorted POV for this section. The second, larger issue is that this is not an article about what various people think are the "real" reasons why Israel insists on controlling the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but rather a simple description of the political history of the territories in question. Attempting to shift the focus of this article for just this small section is another way of POVing it. Jayjg 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My words were "a central strategic concern." This is not the same as "the key issue." Also, most people do not consider religious concerns nor Zionist ideals to be strategic concerns. Is User:John McW really your sockpuppet? Marsden 16:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you returned to silly personal attacks instead of honest discussion? Jayjg 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, "a central strategic concern" is not the same as answering the question of why Israel continues its occupation. As you note, there are many factors to that. Among them, water is a central strategic concern. I don't think anyone honestly disputes that. As much as you have protested against "POV forks," I don't think you have the moral position to proclaim what the article is "about" and to insist that anything beyond what you understand it to be "about" is improper. Marsden 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is not a strategic analysis of the reasons why Israel holds onto the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which, as I have pointed out, are multifaceted. Picking out one specific one out of at least a half-dozen critical ones is POV. If you're looking for an article to discuss the reasons why Israel is holding on to these territories, this article doesn't appear to be it, since none of the rest of the article discusses anything like this. Jayjg 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning on inserting something about the Sinai oil fields, but haven't got around to it. Of course the water issue is relevant. Brian Tvedt 11:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Of course"? Could you elaborate please? Would you also suggest sections discussing the reasons for holding on to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem? Jayjg 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It probably would be appropriate -- in order to prevent POV forks, as you like to say when it suits you, Jay -- to have sections about both the practical significances of the territories and about the conditions there. This isn't a matter of just red states versus blue states, after all -- there are real consequences both ways in the situation. Marsden 13:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comment began with an irrelevant personal attack, so I didn't see any point in reading the rest. Jayjg 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title dispute

Can we try to separate the article Title dispute from the article contents wars? The article was originally called "Occupation of the Palestinian territories". Marsden created a different version of the article called "Occupied Territories (Israeli)". Brian merged the two and called the result "Territories under Israeli control". Can we have some discussion here about what the ultimate title of this article should be? The opening paragraph can certainly be changed to reflect whatever that title is or becomes. Jayjg 14:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, please continue to move the discussion around. "Territories under Israeli control" is just silly, and very POV. Isn't Tel Aviv a territory under Israeli control? "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" will, of course, face objections from the rightwing extremists here, but it is the only accurate term that describes the situation in a NPOV fashion. It is the term used by all non-Israeli governments in the world, all major academic institutions, all major news agencies, etc.

I guess it depends how you define "territory". Some use the term to describe only areas outside the country proper. For example, the Australian Antarctic Territory is part of a territory, while Sydney is part of Australia's territory but isn't part of a territory. (Reminds me of a certain UN resolution...) Andjam 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't Fox News, we shouldn't create our own 'fair and balanced' presentation, we should describe the factual situation (and note objections from significant minorities). Why "occupied territories" should be used in Misplaced Pages is because: United Nations uses it, Amnesty International uses it, U.S. Department of State uses it, the CIA uses it, the Human Rights Watch uses it, Reuters uses it, and so forth. --saxet 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dervish, the article itself points out that there is a dispute regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the term. Opponents of the term raise arguments on that very point - for example, noting that the Gaza Strip and West Bank were never called "Occupied" during the 19 years that Egypt and Jordan controlled them. It has never been disputed that "Occupied territories" is a commonly used term, and that various organizations use it - the fact that you bring many examples of the same certainly bolsters a "common use" argument, but does nothing for a NPOV or accuracy argument. I note, however, that the U.N. itself does not use the phrase "The Occupied territories". Regarding your "Fox News" analogy, I don't watch TV, but I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that there is much difference between Fox News and, say, CNN, except that one is right-wing and one is left-wing - they're pretty much mirror images. Next, the claim that the territories are "occupied" is not a "fact", as you put it, but a legal argument which has not been decided in any court of law with proper jurisdiction over the matter. It certainly is a fact that Israel military controls the territories, but (in the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip at least), whether or not this makes them "occupied" depends on a whole bunch of factors which are unique in this situation. Finally, regarding your describing other editors as "the rightwing extremists here", I'd avoid pejoratives if I were you, since they are viewed as personal attacks, and in any event are completely inappropriate ad hominem arguments. I do note, however, that more right-wing Israelis/supporters view the territories as "liberated", and it appears from the Talk:Israel page (and the history of the article) that someone is making an argument for just that terminology. Jayjg 15:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We've already been over this, Jay. "Nigger" is not by any reckoning NPOV, but it has an entry. What you seem to want is to keep someone from searching wikipedia for "Occupied Territories" from ever finding that this term is often used to refer to the Israeli-Occupied Territories. Marsden 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied territories would still appear in the text, so a person searching would still be able to find them. Was your accusation made in good faith? Also, the n-word analogy would only work if it were the page used if you wanted to look up info on African-Americans, rather than about the use of the word. Andjam 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg 16:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg , I honestly do not care about your POV or your original research. Cite sources instead. As for the extremist John McW, that you are refering to as "someone" who is making an argument for the word "liberated" on Talk:Israel page, it should be noted that "John McW" is actually you, as confirmed by two upper level admins. My grandparents died in the Holocaust, if they knew that their grandchildren would carry on the sad human tradition of ethnic cleansing, they would weep. --saxet 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"John McW" is actually you, as confirmed by two upper level admins. This claim is even more outrageous than your previous ones. Provide evidence of this. Jayjg 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Territories, with "Territories" capitalized, seems good enough to me - are there any other places which are referred to as just the "Occupied Territories"? And I agree with Saxet's reasons why the term is NPOV. john k 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Stating that your grandparents died in the Holocaust is not very helpful in aiding discussion of what the article should be called. Andjam 09:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are examples from Google news of other places (Azerbaijan, Western Sahara) which are referred to as "the occupied territories": Jayjg 15:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That, in Azer Baijan, the term "occupied territories" is sometimes used to refer to Azeri-occupied territory, and that in Western Sahara, the term "occupied territories" is sometimes used to refer to occupied Western Saharan territory, is hardly reason to claim that the term "Occupied Territories" is not widely understood to mean the Israeli-Occupied Territories. Marsden 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people, probably the majority, would think of the Israeli occupied territories if someone talked about the occupied territories. But significant proportions would think of some other occupation. In addition, the use of the word "the occupied territories" implies that the Israeli occupied territories are the only occupied territories in the world, an opinion very few international lawyers would support. In summary, I feel the term "The occupied territories" does not represent the world wide view, and is not accurate. Andjam 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we must have a disambiguator, I'd prefer Occupied Territories (Israel) to Occupied Territories (Israeli). Israeli Occupied Territories would also be acceptable. john k 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to include in the article that the UN, Amnesty etc have referred to the territories are "occupied," just as we note in Hamas which governments have designated the group "terrorist." But just because the overwhelming majority of specialists and members of the public would call Hamas a terrorist organization doesn't mean we can call the page Hamas (terrorists). NPOV has to trump the common-use argument. We have to report majority and significant-minority positions in articles, and make clear which is which, but in titles, we should use neutral names and phrases. SlimVirgin 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the entire world is being incorrect when they are refering to the Occupied Territories. If that's the case, become politically involved, write newspaper articles but do not change Misplaced Pages articles to conform with a view that is held by less than 0.5 percent. If the U.S. State Department is happy with Occupied Territories, if Jewish newspapers are happy with Occupied Territories, then it doesn't matter what your POV is. Just like I shouldn't change "the armies of six Arab nations attacked the State of Israel" to "semi-organized units of people of Arabic decent uninvited visited the State of Israel". --saxet 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So following your argument, we should move Hamas to Hamas (terrorists), in case by omitting that word we're implying that practically the entire world is incorrect? Do you accept that that is a consequence of your argument? SlimVirgin 16:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually Hamas are not referred to as terrorists by the entire world. It's mostly an Isreali-U.S. phenomena. But that's irrevelant; the name of Hamas is Hamas - this is recognized by all (including Sharon and Bush). And the name of the occupied territories is the Occupied Territories. --saxet 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Hamas are regarded as terrorists by the United States, Canada, Israel, and the European Union. And the term "occupied territories" isn't a name. It's a legal description which, in this case, is disputed because it appears not to fit the legal definition. The article can outline the pros and cons of it, but we shouldn't beg the question, pre-judge the issue, with the title. If you're going to rely on common-use arguments, you'll find that lots of other article titles would have to be changed to make your position consistent. You'd also have to define "common use". Would you mean commonly used by ordinary people? In which countries? How would we count them? Or commonly used by governments? Which governments? How could we be sure we were correctly reflecting all views? If most governments did start to call Israel "Zionist entity," would that mean we'd have to follow suit? Your argument has implications that you're not taking on board. SlimVirgin 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Irrevelant, that the name of Hamas is "Hamas" is recognized by the United States, Canada, Israel, and the European Union. The Occupied Territories is a name. A widely recognized name, recognized by the United States, Canada, and the European Union. As we shouldn't "pre-judge" the issue, it's not our role to "judge" it either. Your POV regarding legal definitions and such is completely irrelevant, as is mine. You're attempting some form of original research, and also Shifting the Burden of proof. You have to prove that your inarguably minority view is shared by enough people to warrant inclusion in the article. I've already proved that governments, new agencies, academia, encyclopaedias, etc use the name Occupied Territories, I don't have to prove it further. If all governments in the world (except Israel) started to refer to Israel as "the Zionist Entity" I would hate it, and fight those sentiments - but it wouldn't do no good to pretend that it wasn't happening. Better to operate in the real world than to create a fuzzy warm fairytale version here on Misplaced Pages. --saxet 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If common use arguments worked for all titles, then the Taiwan article would be about the Republic of China, and the China article would be about the People's Republic of China. Jayjg 15:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw man. Except, of course, that Republic of China and People's Reublic of China are commonly used by governments, academia, etc. --saxet 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Straw man" in what sense? Aren't you arguing that article titles should reflect common use? If not, what exactly are you arguing? Jayjg 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In the sense of a logical fallacy. Taiwan and Republic of China are both common use names; Taiwan by newspapers and such, Republic of China by governments and such. Any name used, other than Occupied Territories for the occupied territories, would be extremely far from a common use name. And not factual. And not NPOV. --saxet 16:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself, saxet, but without developing the argument. First, a straw man argument isn't a logical fallacy (not in any strict sense), and secondly, Jay's point didn't amount to a straw man argument anyway. Third, the description "occupied territories" is based on a legal definition that this situation arguably does not fit, so it clearly isn't "factual," whatever that means. And fourth, we're arguing here about whether that title would be NPOV, so there's no point in simply stating that it is. Please argue for it, so we can see where the argument takes us. SlimVirgin 16:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is, so is the False dilemma. What you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter how you interpret the legal technicalities regarding international law and the occupied territories. If I brought fifty friends aboard Misplaced Pages and we all agreed that the real NPOV name of the territories would be "Strawberry Fields Forever", we could temporarily have the name changed to that, but it wouldn't change what name people in the real world use. So my argument is that none of us is credible enough to name/rename the territories and that we should go by the name that is preferred by all governments in the world (except Israel), and by (roughly) 99.9% of all academic experts. --saxet 17:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Jayjg/John McW seem to be back to their pattern of just perpetually extending arguments, so that they can claim that the discussion isn't finished if anyone changes the article from their prefered version. It looks, however, like the censorship of "Israeli Occupied" doesn't have very broad support. Marsden 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be back to your pattern of personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, and I'm getting tired of them. Jayjg 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet -- not me -- noted that John McW is actually you, Jay, and that this had been verified by "two upper level admins." You now -- after my comments, and after I directly asked you if John McW was your sockpuppet, and you declined to answer -- call Saxet's claim outrageous, again without denying it. I might also note that you, Jay, have quite a colored history of accusing people of being sockpuppets of each other, often in the face of what seem to me to be pretty pained and sincere insistences that it is not the case. If this be personal attack, then you are the master of it. Marsden 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also note that in spite of your "Shock! Shock!" that I could "accuse" (actually I only posed it as a question to Grace Note) you of working for Dore Gold's organization or something very like it, you've never denied that, either. It is odd, at the very least, that you quite often post pretty heavily for nine hours straight, often for pretty much the same nine hours day after day. Not very many people would do that without getting paid for it; most wouldn't do it for any amount of money.Marsden 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Saxet didn't "note" anything, he made some ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, as have you, and outrageous and false claims don't require any sort of response. Jayjg 21:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you should be signing off in a little bit, so I'll be able to make the changes I want without worrying about any sort of response from you ... ;-) Marsden 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? And yet here I am to respond to you. Mind you, I do find your rather obsessive monitoring of my editing patterns, times, minutes per edit etc., rather, oh, what's the word? Right: "creepy". Jayjg 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, quit the sockpuppetry allegations, all your other ad hominem comments and personal attacks, and the disruption, and engage in the debate properly. The only reason the argument continues is that no one who disagrees with it is actually prepared to follow it, which suggests you're acting on the basis of prejudice and nothing more. SlimVirgin 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As is your want, Slim, you have begun dither your "argument" into meaninglessness: "a straw man argument isn't a logical fallacy." Puh-lease! Marsden 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A strawman argument is not regarded by most philosophers as a logical fallacy (and by none as a fallacy in the strict sense). It's a rhetorical device. And the example saxet gave wasn't even a strawman argument — but then he seems to believe there's such a thing as an "upper level admin" so he's not the best of sources. Please address the substantive issue, Marsden, instead of dancing around it, as you've been doing since you arrived at Misplaced Pages. SlimVirgin 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The "substantial issue," which I have never danced around, as you know very well, is whether or not it is POV to use the term "Occupied Territories" or even "Israeli Occupied Territories" to describe (duh!) the Israeli Occupied Territories. You have been presented, and have ignored or deflected or obfuscated, arguments well beyond any limit of reason on this, and yet you cheerily repeat over and over and over again your original position. It's very tiring, but of course, that's your intent, isn't it Slim? Marsden 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be your intent, along with POVing articles, and making personal attacks and baseless accusations. I'm going to have to return to my previous policy of only discussing this with less disruptive editors. Jayjg 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hamas analogy is absurd - to begin with, there is no need to disambiguate the terrorist group Hamas from other groups called Hamas. As to the Occupied Territories, on what basis is it POV to say they are occupied? They have not been annexed to Israel, and they are under a military occupation. Does the Israeli government even explicitly deny that they are occupied territories (lower case)? john k 17:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government disputes that they are occupied; see the sources provided in the article, or read this: . Jayjg 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, the Hamas argument was intended to address what I see as an inconsistency in the common-use argument that Marsden and saxet (and presumably you) are advancing. If there were another group called Hamas (let's say an Arab feminist group), and we therefore had to disambiguate, would you agree that we should call the articles Hamas (feminists) and Hamas (terrorists)? To use the word "terrorist" in the title would reflect the majority view of the nature of Hamas (probably the majority view of the English-speaking public, and certainly that of Western governments), and would therefore be consistent with the common-use argument. If you would not be prepared to disambiguate Hamas with the word "terrorist," you're admitting to an inconsistency in the argument. You're admitting, in other words, that common use is not always consistent with NPOV. SlimVirgin 18:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But there is no other group called Hamas - the argument is moot. Find an actual example, and I'll discuss it. As it is, there is no need to disambiguate Hamas, so I see no need to entertain the question. That said, calling a territory "occupied" and calling a group "terrorist" are not equally defamatory. I would suggest that the word "occupied" is not defamatory at all. Jay - thanks for the link to the Israeli position, but I don't think their definition of an occupation is tenable. Gaza and the West Bank are territories which are under military administration, and which are not part of the State of Israel. This is, by definition, an occupation. And the term is used in Israel as well. See Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. john k 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, the point of an argument is to tease out inconsistencies in a position, so it makes no difference whether the example is a real one. The word "occupied" is disputed, and whether it's defamatory is beside the point. Also, what you gave is not the definition of "occupation." Iraq is under military administration (to all intents and purposes, though the U.S. denies it), and has 147,000 U.S. troops in it, and yet it isn't regarded as occupied. But regardless: the word is disputed, and I have given you another example of a disputed word (terrorist) that's in common use but is avoided when possible. Would you mind addressing the Hamas-title argument, even though it's not a real example? SlimVirgin 19:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, you should look through some of those links you posted a link to. In the case of the Jerusalem Post, most of them are not what you think, but rather are quoting people, or are opinion pieces, or even bulletin board comments. In the case of Haaretz, the same applies, or they are articles taken directly from other news sources, like Reuters. Jayjg 19:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I regard U.S.-occupied Iraq as U.S.-Occupied Iraq, let's see the United States Department of State self-reference that! :) El_C 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay - I know that some of the google searches are not turning up actual articles. However, we do have this article in Haaretz, which says "Ha'aretz's position ever since the 1967 war has been that Israel should espouse a policy of returning the occupied territories to the Arabs in return for peace." So I think we can say that Ha'aretz, at least, accepts the use of the term "occupied territories" as valid. This article seems to me to be a Ha'aretz news article that uses the term "occupied territories." This article, after using the term in quotations several times, then uses it in a narrative passage. So Ha'aretz clearly does use the term. Obviously, Ha'aretz is fairly far to the left side of Israeli opinion, but it is also quite clear that it does not view use of the term "occupied territories" as controversial. This op-ed from the JPost, by somebody who calls Arafat "one of the two arch-terrorists of our times" refers to the occupied territories. article, from the science section, also uses "occupied territories" unproblematically. Do I have to continue with this? NPOV does not mean that we have to treat all POVs as equivalent. Even if we take the dubious official Israeli position as a given, and add to that the opinions of crazy settler types, that still doesn't match the fact that every other country in the world, major NGOs, and the United Nations all use "occupied territories," including the United States. And that this term is used unproblematically by major Israeli newspapers, including in op-eds by people obviously unsympathetic to the Palestinians. At a certain point, whatever name we use will be POV, to an extent. The term "occupied territories" is so widespread that not using it seems like we're whoring for the Israeli POV. If the Jerusalem Post can, on occasion, at least, use "occupied territories," I don't see how it's too POV for us. john k 04:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Was the term "occupied territories" in common use before 1982 (which is an issue since the Sinai is included here)? In any case, since redirects from shorter titles can be easily made, why not place the article at a cumbersome but bland—and thus less controversial—title like Territories captured by Israel in 1967 or Territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day War? Whatever the "correct" title is now, I don't believe the historical fact of their capture is in dispute. Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term was in common use before 1982. And very few people made any bones about it. I think the first instance that dispute over the terminology ever became prominent was in the Camp David negotiations in the mid-1970s, when Menachem Begin insisted on referring to "Judea and Samaria" rather than to "the West Bank." And the Americans and Egyptians involved in the negotiations thought that was really odd, but they wanted to accomplish something and didn't really care about the terminology, so they didn't challenge him. Marsden 14:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The term was apparently never used before Israel got control of the territories; when Jordan and Egypt were controlling them, somehow they were not "occupied". Very odd, that, unless one assumes that Jordan and Egypt have legitimate title to the territories, or that the Palestinians are not a people, but merely Jordanians and/or Egyptians. But somehow I don't think the people who describe Israeli control as an "occupation" are assuming that. Jayjg 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so odd at all, really. The Palestinians are Arabs as well as being Palestinians. You might recall that for a brief time, Syria and Egypt were merged in the United Arab Republic. The occupation -- and it was occupation -- of the West Bank and Gaza by the Jordanians and Egyptians would have been more akin to Britain and the US "occupying" France in WWII after driving the Germans out but before French civil government could be restored. The difference, of course, was that at least the Jordanians did not want a Palestinian government ever to be formed, but instead wanted the Palestinians to become Jordanian. This is still, however, a stark contrast to the Israeli attitude to the Palestinians, whom Israel does not want at all to become Israelis, but would rather have disappear. I doubt it takes much imagination to understand the difference between being occupied by a country that wants you, as people, to join it and being occupied by a country that wants you, as people, to leave. Marsden 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Jordanians annexed the West Bank. Although this was not recognized by anyone else, it does mean that the area was administered as part of Jordan, which is most certainly not true of the West Bank's treatment by Israel at present. The Jordanians also offered Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians living in its territory. That being said, you are right about Gaza. But it is a minor point. The world isn't fair. Even if Gaza's status under Egypt and under Israel were the same (I'm not convinced of this), the basic fact is that, as you point out, Gaza and the West Bank were not called "occupied territories" when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control, and they have been called it since 1967. We can't call Gaza and the West Bank "occupied territories" when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control, because nobody used the term. People have used the term since 1967 (including, once again, major Israeli publications, specifically including the Jerusalem Post, which is no friend of the Palestinians). The question is not "is it fair that the term was not used when Arabs were in charge of the area, but are used now that the Israelis are"? The questions to ask are 1) "Is it common usage to call them the occupied territories?" The answer is obviously yes. This is how they are most commonly referred everywhere in the world outside Israel. 2) "Is it especially misleading to call them the occupied territories?" I think the answer to this is not really - their administration is certainly describable as one of occupation. Obviously, definitions of occupation can vary, but I think that one can say that the term fits. 3) "Is it betraying an anti-Israel POV to refer to them as the occupied territories?" I think the answer to this is also not really. The US government and the Jerusalem Post both use the term (at least occasionally in the latter case). I'm going to continue with "a phrase cannot be anti-Israel POV if it is used as a straightforward term in the Jerusalem Post. (For more examples another op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post from someone whose viewpoint appears to be best described as Sharonite - supports the Gaza pull out, but because of relatively hardline views. Here's another usage, from 1991, in what seems to be a timeline article. This article also uses the term. I have yet to see any evidence that "occupied territories" is not only the most commonly used term worldwide, but is also a commonly used term in Israel itself, and not only by the left. Again, the official bargaining position of the Israeli government and the rantings of a few extremist settlers do not trump the common usage of the entire world, and the fact that said usage is not "fair" because people didn't use it about the Egyptians or the Jordanians is completely irrelevant. john k 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving on ...

It seems that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Andjam are the only ones directly insisting against a title using some combination of "Israel," "Occupied," and "Territory." Brian Tvedt, based on his actions, might choose to join them. I, saxet, John K, Grace Note, and El C, among the people commenting here on the matter, are in favor of it. Five to (at best) four, although perhaps making the motion I'm about to make will get more people out of the woodwork.

I suggest that we decide on a name for the article that incorporates the above term, and make the name change.

At one time, I had made an "Occupied territories" disambiguation page between "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" and "Occupied territories (general meaning)," and we might do something like that again. Marsden 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye?

• Marsden 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, --Sebastian Kessel 19:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• saxet 20:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nay?

It's too early for voting, which is a bad idea in any event. Rather then closing down discussion after, oh, about 4 hours and 5 participants, why don't we wait for a full discussion of the topic, with many others having a chance to weigh in. Jayjg 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (Vote "Nay," then, Jay.)

I find Slim's argument compelling: Leave inflamatory/disputed terms out of the title (i.e., "occupied" or "disputed"), but directly address the disputed terms in the article. That seems most in line with being neutral. The title is a label, and to favor one over the other would have Misplaced Pages take a position on which "side" is in the "right". There *is* controversy over the term. The article itself, however, would provide more room to present the various perspectives without it appearing Misplaced Pages takes a particular position. I think there should be a disambig redirecting both "Occupied Territories" and "Disputed Territories" to a more neutral titled page. --MPerel 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about having pages using occupied and disputed redirect to a third, neutral title, and developing a rigorous article about the nature of the dispute, without begging any questions. I also agree that it's too early to vote, and that voting is probably not a good idea anyway. This is Marsden's way of trying to stifle debate. SlimVirgin 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Came here from the VFC and I don't have an opinion as yet. But it does appear that someone is trying to stifle debate. Voting in this case is inappropriate, IMO. (at least, at this point it is) Can't you reach a compromise? Danlovejoy 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for almost two weeks, and across several different articles. Marsden 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, are you still threatening to delete the word "Israel" from every article if you lose the vote? I am confused as to the nature of the debate here. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No; I think there has been enough influx of people to the debate here that a reasonable outcome is likely. In my experience, when Jay and Slim have numbers on their side, they won't debate at all; when the numbers are uncertain, they'll try to keep their prefered version of an article intact while they wear everyone out with circular and tangential debates; and when they're outnumbered, they'll actually discuss things ("as they have been trying to do all along," don't you know). They make hook up some reserves and fall back into their obdurate behavior, but I think the fact that the POV that they are trying to dictate is distinctly in the minority is bearing out. Marsden 23:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am not sure to proceed here in evaluating your proposal on its merits, due to the nature of this discussion. I feel that your announced intention to deface multiple articles is not an acceptable way to debate on Misplaced Pages, and that supporting your proposal would justify the means you used. I may not always agree with Jayg and Slimvirgin, and know that you found interacting with them frustrating, but you seem to really be gunning for them personally (calling them "evil" etc.), which I also find troubling. How would you suggest that I reconcile ends and means here? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, number one, for the same reason you reached your current impasse, you should probably be disinclined to do whatever I suggest anyway. Still, you should play the game, not the player. Say whatever you need to to me, but procede otherwise with whatever you think is the right thing to do. Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can take this to your talk page if you want, but I want to know whether I am encouraging your recently combative approach if I were to support this vote, or any other proposals you make in the future. I would hope to see something like what El C talks about, an end to the constant sniping at Jay and Slimvirgin, and especially to stop threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages as a result of your debates with them, which I feel you have never responded to. You are unlikely to achieve a friendship with Jay and Slimvirgin, I know, but the current apocalyptic situation is untenable, and is not conducive to our hobby of writing an encyclopedia. Realize that Slimvirgin and Jay have a long history of great editing, and your constant vitriolic attacks ("evil" "bullies," etc.) are not likely to be ultimately helpful, whatever the value of your cause. So, is there any chance you can tone this approach down considerably, please, so it doesn't distract from the issues that we are actually trying to discuss? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please realize though that this isn't all that black and white. I agree with a lot of what you wrote but it isn't fair if Marsden is portrayed as the troublemaker. Sometimes it takes quite a few people to tango. If you're sensitive and react strongly to racism and social injustice it is hard to read this conversation between Guy Montag and Ramallite, that also has a couple of comments by Jayjg. For me it was painful to read that stuff, Guy Montag who calmly explain why ethnic cleansing of Arabs is necessary. Or have comments like these directed at you. And other stuff I'm sure, that I'm not aware of. Or just the fact that you have to live with the knowledge that if an uneducated person looks up articles about the Palestinians in Misplaced Pages they are going to read stuff that says that their territories aren't occupied, that they enjoy full political and civic rights, that their claims are outrageous and that the world doesn't really see a problem with how the Palestinian people (if there really is such a thing) are treated. (Stuff that goes against what 99.9% of the world says, including Encyclopaedia Britannica and the U.S. State Department.) --saxet 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I don't usually work on modern Israeli-Palestinian issues because I do not want to get involved in this sort of fight, there is far too much to do on WP and contentious articles rarely ever become readable, anyway. I became involved in this case because Marsden, who I had built a working relationship with, stated that he wanted to vandalise WP, including articles that I do edit. That, in my mind, is against the very nature of Misplaced Pages. There is a difference between objecting to someone's views and personally attacking them by calling them names, and an even bigger difference in threatening to attack articles outside of the debate to make a point. The first is normal discourse, the second eats away at the civility required to make WP run, and the third is out-and-out destructive. As I think I have made clear, I am not asking Marsden to stop arguing with SlimVirgin and Jayg, but to agree to stop with the frequent insults (the "evil" assault on his userpage) and most especially retract his threats to vandalize. If he does these two things, he can continue to fight whichever fights he wants, and I'll even support him in some of them, but I don't like being threatened into a position ("support me or I'll vandalize"). I keep reiterating this point, as does, I think, El C below. Interestingly, I just met User:Jimbo Wales today, and the conversation convinced me more than ever that establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree whith all that you wrote here except the last phrase "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on". I don't know what to make of that. I wanted Marsden banned for his support-me or-I'll-vandalize position, but this issue regarding Occupied Territories isn't about Marsden. It is something I've fought for, and many other editors. We shouldn't have to settle for the 'old language' beacuse of your reservations regarding Marsden's means & motives. --saxet 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, saxet. I don't want to be threatened into voting for Marsden's proposal, regardless of whether I think he is on the right side, and I don't want the tone of every discussion to devolve into this unusually rancorous debate. There are a lot of contentious issues on WP, and if this is the way they are discussed, the project is not going to be a lot of fun in the future. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, Misplaced Pages norms, like Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. That would preclude things like speculating about the motives of others, describing them in various negative ways (e.g. "hardliners"), making false accusations about them, etc. Jayjg 12:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I know one way to proceed. A concerted effort on Marsden part to start exhibiting good faith, and much, much less venom. El_C 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

With Jay and Slim, any assumption I had of good faith was beaten out of me long ago. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They are just nasty, and not only with me -- I am appalled at some of the veiled threats they have made against users who are making their very first contributions here; they must scare away dozens of potential contributers whose only mistake is thinking that their input might be welcome. When it comes to their pet topics, they are bullies, pure and simple. Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. If you feel you have grievences that need addressing, proceed through the appropriate channels, this article talk page is designed to discuss the pertinent material, not provide a venu for personal diatribes. If you keep up the "they are just nasty" comments and so on, you will be blocked for disruption. Please take that as a final warning. El_C 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If that's not an "acceptable response," you'd better ban me, El C, because SlimVirgin and Jayjg really are just nasty. And I have little patience for the continual threats -- many from SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- about how I am "being disruptive" and how they are "warning" me, etc., etc., etc. El C, I don't need Misplaced Pages, and I'm not going to put up with bullshit from anyone. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are just nasty in how they protect their POV here. That's the fact, as I see it. I won't pretend otherwise. Strike your colors, El C. Marsden 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I was ready to go out of my way to have you banned/blocked/whatever, to make sure that none of your ideas (even if I happened to agree with some) would ever be implemented ; because I read that infamous suggestion of yours as antisemitic. When I realized that you were trying to make a point, and when I didn't find any antisemitic stuff in your edit history I cooled down and started to evaluate your ideas in a more objective manner. Point is, Misplaced Pages editing is politics (shouldn't be, but is) and it's dumb to lose battles simply because you alienate potential allies, and give the moral highground to people who doesn't deserve it. When you get frustrated, you lose composure and play into the hands of the pro's. To make these articles NPOV will take a while, and it will require that other admins/editors here on Misplaced Pages (where are you guys?) notice what's actually going on here. My suggestion is that you play it smart (i.e. play nice) and let the actions of the hardliners speak for themselves. Just my two agorot. --saxet 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Do you even imagine that describing people who disagree with your POV as "people who don't deserve the high ground" and "pros" and "hardliners" is gaining you any of the high ground? Perhaps you should get some advice on that from those "two upper level admins". ;-) Jayjg 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

An optimist laughs to forget, a pessimist forgets to laugh. I see you're trying out the 'power' of argumentum ad ignorantiam. --saxet 13:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this you following the advice you gave Marsden to "play it smart (i.e. play nice)"? Oops, it's an argumentum ad contradictiam, closely related in your case to argumentum ad odium. SlimVirgin 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you think you know what you're talking about but I don't think you do. --saxet 13:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

• Please note that someone has been forging my signature and previous comments that appeared under this heading with my name were vandalism. I am abstaining from this vote. Brian Tvedt 03:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Noted and blocked for 72 hours for impersonation. El_C 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

In the Terminology section, I think that the case for or common usage of the term "Occupied Territories" should be listed first since it is the most commonly used phrase. It seems strange to read objections to the term before it's been introduced. --MPerel 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course...that's assuming the article title remains neutral and that the term "Occupied Territories" hasn't been introduced yet. If the article title takes a position instead of being neutral, then my comment is obviously moot. --MPerel 20:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But is not taking that position counts as a position in this dispute? Not to enter into a play over semantics, but the side that objects to the use of the word occupied is not insisting on using disputed in the title, so much as they ... object to the use of the word occupied. El_C 23:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you bring up a valid point, in that it's certainly a huge (maybe insurmountable) challenge to come up with some sort of neutral resolution. The whole thing sort of reminds me of the BC-AD/BCE-CE debate. The BC/AD terminology, while commonly used, represents a specific religious idealogy and belief which many people who use the term do not necessarily espouse. So it would seem more neutral to use terminology (like BCE/CE) that makes no declarations about deities, one way or the other, etc. And yet many perceive any terminology that would replace BC/AD to be an anti-BC/AD statement, not a neutral statement. So it apparently makes a non-position not possible, since there is a forced bias one way or another. There's no easy answer, the same dilemma occurs any time there is an attempt to replace a broadly used (but loaded) term (in this case "Occupied Territories") with a neutral one, since the "neutral" replacement term can be interpreted as a biased rejection of the initial or common term : ( --MPerel 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comparison shopping

Just to see how Misplaced Pages has dealt with other "contentious" terminology, I just looked up Armenian Genocide, which some of you may know the Turkish government denies ever happened and pressures other governments around the world to refrain ever from referring to it. The title of the article is plainly, "Armenian Genocide," though it has a POV flag and the opening paragraph includes the sentence,

"Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I."

(On the talk page is a quote allegedly from the Turkish embassy website that uses the term, "the Armenian experience," which I believe was also the name of a band that played at the Monterrey Pop Festival in 1968, although I may be mistaken about that.) The next paragraph begins,

"Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide."

I'd call that a very weak sentence, actually: it would be more accurate, I think, to write that only a few scholars, most of them from Turkey, dispute that the events constitute a genocide, but the Turkish government has managed to persuade many other governments and the UN not to make reference to it. The reality of the situation is that the term "genocide" was coined specifically to refer to the "Armenian experience;" it's something like the Xerox corporation protesting not against people referring to photocopying with other machines as "xeroxing," but against people referring to photocopying with Xerox machines as "xeroxing."

Anyway, MPerel made a suggestion about having a "neutral" title, with links to it from the various "non-neutral" names, and even SlimVirgin was agreeable to that, which is great progress, really: previously, she and Jayjg had been attempting to obliterate any links that suggested Israeli occupation. Had this suggestion been made long ago, I probably would have gone along with it. But at this point I think it would just end up being a resting position, where most people would think the matter had been settled and would stop paying attention to it. Then after a while Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship. So now I think it's more important to keep the light of day on this censorship effort.

So, I think that if Turkey can have the label "genocide" stuck onto something it is responsible for but denies, and something that it has largely managed to avoid UN and other governmental reference to, then Israel should have little complaint about having the comparatively minor label of "occupation" stuck onto its situation, which is probably even more agreed upon than the Armenian Genocide.

Marsden 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not an analogous situation; the Turkish government denies that the Armenians were killed in the first place. On the other hand, in this situation there is no doubt nor disagreement that Israel controls the territories, the only question is what is the most neutral way to described that control - thus it is analogous to the "terrorist" designation. Your continued personal attacks (e.g. Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship) are a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and you have been apprised of this many times. Jayjg 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(I wonder if I'm banned yet?) Actually, the Turkish government's denial -- if we may believe the Misplaced Pages article -- is mostly that it was a planned and organized undertaking. Marsden 15:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have said "deliberately killed". They dispute the numbers killed as well, making significantly lower estimates than others. Jayjg 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A more analogous situation may be Tibet Autonomous Region (I tried Western Sahara Desert but it was currently having edit wars of its own), which has nary a mention of occupation or annexation (not what I'm asking for with this article, just that the legal judgements are not made in the title itself). The map in the article uses the neutral word "administered". (I'm not opposed to discussions about the legal status of Israel's actions, I'm just asking that a NPOV article title is used). Andjam 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Another form of comparison shopping: A much more informative online article on the Occupied Territories than Misplaced Pages is likely to manage: Countrystudies:Israel:The Occupied Territories

Include pre-1967 Israel in article

It was previously argued that the article didn't make sense because the article definition would include pre-1967 Israel. Maybe the article could be renamed from "Territories under Israeli control" to "Territory under Israeli control" and include pre-1967 Israel. This'd make information more contiguous, rather than splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 areas.

Splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 implies that the pre-1967 borders aren't disputed. Most of the Palestinian militant groups don't see pre-1967 Israel as undisputed. Andjam 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If pre-1967 Israel were included, the article could also be renamed to "Territorial disputes involving Israel" to avoid giving the territories themselves a single title. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)